Amos Quito:vpb: Really the zombie argument is better than anything I have heard an actual gun nut come up with.

What exactly is this "Assault Weapons Ban" supposed to accomplish, again?

To reduce the number of people killed in your chart genius.

The whole "we can't ban weapons unless we ban everything else that causes people to die first" is precisely the sort of argument I was thinking of when I said that needing guns for zombies was a more rational argument.

cman:Izicata: cman: Izicata: The point of an AWB is to stop mass shootings. Most people who are shot to death are not shot to death in a mass shooting, but that doesn't mean that stopping mass shootings is a bad thing.

Australia passed their assault weaponry ban in 1996, and it was followed by more than a decade free of fatal mass shootings, and accelerated declines in firearm deaths (PDF). In comparison, the United States has had twenty-five mass shootings since 2006, seven of those in 2012 alone.

Saudi Arabia banned woman drivers and their accident rate was much lower for many years. Should we try that, too?

"False equivalence is a logical fallacy which describes a situation where there is a logical and apparent equivalence, but when in fact there is none."

Guns are not cars. Guns are nothing like cars. Banning one gender from driving is nothing like banning the ownership of various forms of weaponry.

And you missed the point.

I was saying that Australia isnt America. What works there does not always mean it will work here, too.

Australia and America are not exactly the same, but are similar enough that comparisons can be made and useful data is available. I'm comparing two first world, western, industrialized, democratic countries; not America and Saudi Arabia.

violentsalvation:stickmangrit: Yeah, because the Brady bill worked great, just ask the Columbine survivors./and I thought it was the republicans who were supposed to be irrationally terrified of stupid shiat...

Democrats proving they aren't always the party of facts, data, and reason.

That's what makes me sad about this gun control "debate".

I'm a democrat, and a liberal. That said, I'm pro-gun rights and a dues-paying member of the NRA. I support all civil rights, from marriage equality to the right to bear arms.

I was so proud last fall to see the Democrats being the party of reason and logic, and seeing my fellows being proud of that. They would present the cold, hard facts on how their plans would be best for America, and how Rmoney was lying and not staying with the facts.

. . .then Newtown happened. The left-wing Derp started up. Within a day we had a chorus of Farkers shouting about banning this and confiscating that, and it was much much worse in some other parts of the internet. I left a number of left-wing groups I followed and participated on Facebook, because instantly there was a chorus of people basically saying that unless you want to repeal the Second Amendment and confiscate all guns then you were in favor of dead babies. It was like a left-wing mirror universe version of the right-wing derp I'd spent the last year dealing with.

There is no gun control that is permissible under the Heller and McDonald precedents that is going to make a reasonable dent in gun violence. It would be better to increase protection for sensitive sites, work on some mental healthcare solutions, and try to look at the deeper cause about why active shooter incidents only really started coming around in the last 15 years or so, and were ridiculously rare before that. What has changed in our society? It's not the availability of guns, it's something deeper. An AWB is a band-aid on sunburn in terms of the wrong fix to the real problem.

cman:You try to ban assault rifles and you will begin the second civil war.

Perception is reality, and many crazy rightists believe that Obama is coming for their guns. Banning assault rifles will send these overly paranoid folks over the edge. They didnt buy those guns when he was elected and reelected for show. They plan on using them.

Fark them. I'm not here to coddle crazy people. If they go over the edge because they're told their actions and attitude are no longer socially acceptable, it is not on me to back down and just let them do whatever the fark they want. For me to do that is to live my life in the exact kind of pants-shiatting fear that they do.

You try to ban assault rifles and you will begin the second civil war.

Perception is reality, and many crazy rightists believe that Obama is coming for their guns. Banning assault rifles will send these overly paranoid folks over the edge. They didnt buy those guns when he was elected and reelected for show. They plan on using them.

Gosling:Farker Soze: Is this similar to the argument that alternates between "a 10 round magazine would prevent someone from hitting more than one or two people" in one case and then suddenly "If you can't fight off multiple home invaders with more than 10 shots you don't deserve to live. Aim better gun-nut" in the next?

Those statements do not contradict each other. The aim of 10-round magazines is to make a guy firing wildly in a mass shooting stop and reload earlier, giving someone an earlier opening to stop him with fewer dead. In a home-invasion scenario (a scenario that in and of itself is far less likely than getting shot by someone you already know, a fact conveniently ignored by the pro-gun crowd), you're more liable to take the extra second to aim and the reload period probably isn't going to factor into anything. If you need more than 10 shots in that situation, odds are you're so vastly outnumbered and outgunned that you're farked no matter what you do.

IF what you say is true, then why do every one of these laws have exemptions for law enforcement? If High Capacity and Assault Weapons are really only legitimate tools for mass murder, then we don't need to exempt cops from them. Any argument you can make that a cop may need one would also be a good reason a citizen might want one.

demaL-demaL-yeH:vygramul: And if you're looking for the Founders' implementation of the first (by the way, operational) clause, look to the Militia Acts of 1792 and the Regulations for the Order and Discipline of the Troops of the United States, approved by Congress in 1779, and the Militia clauses in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution of the United States of America. Since the Founders planned to have no standing army and the states feared being disarmed, Amendment II was included in the Bill of Rights. The Supremes got it wrong.

Keep making up history - it suits your preference for ideological satisfaction over reality well.

What part of the Militia Acts of 1792 were made up by me?Or did I make up Regulations for the Order and Discipline of the Troops of the United States?Or Article I Section 8 of the Constitution of the United States of America?Did I borrow Obama's time machine and write the Articles of Confederation, Federalist Paper #8, Federalist Paper #24, Federalist Paper #26, Anti-Federalist Paper #28, Anti-Federalist Paper #29, or Federalist Paper #46?

The Anti-Federalists explicitly feared that Congress would disarm the state militias, given the Powers granted Congress in Article I Section 8. This fear led to Amendment II.

You try to ban assault rifles and you will begin the second civil war.

Perception is reality, and many crazy rightists believe that Obama is coming for their guns. Banning assault rifles will send these overly paranoid folks over the edge. They didnt buy those guns when he was elected and reelected for show. They plan on using them.

Then our military with our drones will conquer and pacify them, just like they did in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Those chickenhawk losers are not getting on their hoverround to fight, any time, ever. They don't give a fark about the constitution, you know what they want? To get to shoot someone legally, for the rush. They aren't going to fight for the constitution, or this country, or anything.

I don't think that is a fair assessment. My guess is that there is a decent representative number of veterans among the gun enthusiast ranks. Not to say that your characterization has no individual examples. You could easily demonize both sides by their extreme members positions.

doglover:Farker Soze: What's laughable is that you don't believe, even when they tell it to your face and have been fighting for it for 30 years, that some of these politicians will not stop until all you are left with is a pea shooter and home made slingshot.

Ablejack:Are any of you arguing that we don't have the power to take over the government with every election?

Actually, with the way we are locked into a duopoly of democrats and republicans, whose overall service has been to corporations and their biggest donors rather than to their actual constituents, pretty much yeah.

No, but neither is your one vote which doesn't even have the power to elect the President or pass laws because we live in a representative republic.

So, let's take away your dinky vote and only let certain people vote. Maybe only landowners with a degree in political science. Clearly they should know what to do, right?

And women are busy kids and stuff. They don't need votes.

After that, poor people are in debt, so no one with debt should get a vote. And really we want people to stick around, so only landowners with children should get a vote. And no Mexicans or Blacks or Jews or Italians or Irish, either, because reasons.

Oh hey, look at that, only this one guy gets to vote. Oh hey, look, he's elected himself president for life and minted a crown.

D'ya see how sacrificing rights to others goes? The rifle in your closet isn't defending freedom. However the freedom to own said rifle IS freedom and anyone who wants freedom should be fighting tooth and nail AGAINST all bans and infringements because we've already lost ground in the last 20 years. We have to stop giving up rights for any reason whatsoever and start takin' 'em back.

Fart_Machine:Amos Quito: The Second Amendment is the ONLY right that has teeth, and it is the ONLY right that gives The People the power to defend their interests.

If it ever came down to taking over the government at gunpoint we'd cease to be a democracy. But no, the rifle in your closet isn't holding back tyranny.

That rifle in the closest helps people defend themselves from more than the threat of tyranny, but since you brought it up, are you implying that syrian rebels aren't holding back tyranny? Are you also implying the fact our gov't has struggled with every ground forces encounter since WW2 will suddenly stop being the norm if it went after it's own citizens?

quatchi:Silly Jesus: If you removed a small element of the population from inner cities (and their violence statistics along with them) then we would suddenly be much more in line with your ideal countries. Not sure what your negative reaction to that reality is based on.

"If you remove some of the gun violence statistics we don't really look that bad" is your argument and you're explaining "reality" to me?

There's a superstition that America has a "gun violence" problem. It doesn't. It has a black (and increasingly Hispanic) crime problem, which the government and the mainstream media manage to avoid discussing by pretending that the white rural hunter with the NRA sticker on his truck is the real threat to the country.

udhq:I don't care how it looks or what it's made out of. What I don't like is the capability to fire more than 1 round per trigger pull.

With the exception of a small number of very strictly-regulated privately owned machine guns (which haven't been used in crimes since the 1980s), all guns owned in the US (and all guns currently legal for sale from shops) can only fire one shot per trigger pull. A gun may look like a military rifle that's full-auto, but the civilian-legal gun can only fire one shot per trigger pull. It's a common misconception that so-called "assault weapons" refer to machine guns, rather than "scary looking" semi-auto guns.

carpbrain:AR-15s should be freely available because . . . hobbyists like using them? Rocket propelled grenades would probably be a hoot for hobbyists as well. Pretty sure we don't allow them.

Basically, yes: It's the most popular rifle in the country and is used almost exclusively for lawful purposes like sport and competition. There's no functional difference between the AR-15 and any of gobs of other semi-auto rifles that would not be affected by such a ban: they fire the same ammo at the same velocity from detachable magazines. People focus on the AR because it looks like an M16, even though it fires only one shot per pull of the trigger. The bill proposed by Senator Feinstein would ban certain guns like the AR, but specifically exempt other functionally identical guns like the Mini-14 even though there's no real difference in terms of lethality. Indeed, the "ranch rifle" (wood stock, looks like something your grandfather would have) variant of the Mini-14 would be specifically exempt from the ban while the "tactical" version (which is the exact same gun, but has a black plastic stock) would be banned.

Amos Quito:Do you really believe that the Founding Fathers were so naive that they believed the government they intended to craft - on the behalf of themselves AND THEIR POSTERITY would somehow be magically immune to the dark, corrupting nature that is everpresent in humanity? That their government would somehow always serve the interests of THE PEOPLE?

I think what you fail to understand is that it was only acceptable to express scepticism about the scope and power of the US government prior to the presidential election of 2008... whereas dissent was once the highest form of patriotism, now it is a thinly veiled form of racism and/or a sign of right-wing extremism. The Founders could not possibly have been expected to foresee that in our day, for the first time in US history, the government would be led by people who were utterly noble and altruistic; that is why, as the New York Times has so sagely asserted, it is time to scrap the Constitution, since there is no need for checks and balances on a totally benevolent administration.

carpbrain:vygramul: carpbrain: Not sure where going with this. So . . . everyone should have one? We have a bunch of other devices even better at killing people and blowing stuff up, maybe everyone should have those as well.

The discussion is about re-drawing the line. We don't currently allow folks to own machine guns. Maybe the NRA isn't OK with that (probably not). But it seems sensible to me.

The problem is that people seem to be unclear on the capabilities of given weapons and so reduce their perceived objections to the point of stupidity. I've said it before and I'll say it again: one side will never admit that there is one thing that would work, the other side is too afraid to admit that anything less will be ineffective.

Well, then, maybe a weapons-expert like yourself should contribute to the discussion, and identify those weapons that are likely to do more harm than good. I'm no expert, I just see folks using AR-15s to shoot up theaters and elementary schools, and that seems like a bad thing to me. I'm quite certain that society will continue, and gun advocates will manage to enjoy themselves, if we banned that weapon. I don't think it will happen, though. What seems nuttier is the opposition to universal background checks and high capacity magazines.

Do you not care about the Newtown School full of black kids killed in Chicago on a weekly basis by handguns?

vygramul:carpbrain: Not sure where going with this. So . . . everyone should have one? We have a bunch of other devices even better at killing people and blowing stuff up, maybe everyone should have those as well.

The discussion is about re-drawing the line. We don't currently allow folks to own machine guns. Maybe the NRA isn't OK with that (probably not). But it seems sensible to me.

The problem is that people seem to be unclear on the capabilities of given weapons and so reduce their perceived objections to the point of stupidity. I've said it before and I'll say it again: one side will never admit that there is one thing that would work, the other side is too afraid to admit that anything less will be ineffective.

Well, then, maybe a weapons-expert like yourself should contribute to the discussion, and identify those weapons that are likely to do more harm than good. I'm no expert, I just see folks using AR-15s to shoot up theaters and elementary schools, and that seems like a bad thing to me. I'm quite certain that society will continue, and gun advocates will manage to enjoy themselves, if we banned that weapon. I don't think it will happen, though. What seems nuttier is the opposition to universal background checks and high capacity magazines.

cman:carpbrain: Why is it, exactly, that gun threads draw so many *ahem* advocates out the woodwork? No, really, in detail, how is it?

I sufferered through some nutty years on Fark, with a vast majority cheering for going to war with Iraq. But it seems like it has largely recovered since then.

But when the subject of guns comes up, all of these cockroaches start running around.

Core beliefs tend to bring out masses.

When a Republican files a bill to add red tape to get abortions, Democrats come out because woman's choice is one of their core beliefs. When a Democrat files a bill to add red tape on buying weapons, Republicans come out because the right to arm oneself is a core belief.

But who cares? All of this arm waving about "law-abiding gun-owners" . . . opposing background checks? Because . . . why? It's hard to explain how nutty it seems for a non-gun-nut observing.

cman:Izicata: The point of an AWB is to stop mass shootings. Most people who are shot to death are not shot to death in a mass shooting, but that doesn't mean that stopping mass shootings is a bad thing.

Australia passed their assault weaponry ban in 1996, and it was followed by more than a decade free of fatal mass shootings, and accelerated declines in firearm deaths (PDF). In comparison, the United States has had twenty-five mass shootings since 2006, seven of those in 2012 alone.

Saudi Arabia banned woman drivers and their accident rate was much lower for many years. Should we try that, too?

cman:Izicata: The point of an AWB is to stop mass shootings. Most people who are shot to death are not shot to death in a mass shooting, but that doesn't mean that stopping mass shootings is a bad thing.

Australia passed their assault weaponry ban in 1996, and it was followed by more than a decade free of fatal mass shootings, and accelerated declines in firearm deaths (PDF). In comparison, the United States has had twenty-five mass shootings since 2006, seven of those in 2012 alone.

Saudi Arabia banned woman drivers and their accident rate was much lower for many years. Should we try that, too?

cman:These people are dangerous. Many of them are crazy. Get a bunch of them together and you get mob mentality. Remember Matthew Shepard? Man was murdered because he was gay. Now imagine that happening all across the south to every homosexual and every Muslim.

When it comes to killing minorities they really have no problem with it. They have time and time again showed that they are violent. These are the people who will revolt. Don't underestimate your enemy.

Then let them revolt. Let them show once and for all just what kind of country they want. I'm tired of 'soon'. If they want to start shooting, let them get their ass shot off by people that actually know what they're doing and let this whole thing farking end.

Doktor_Zhivago:Silverstaff: To the Left: Don't ban Scary Blah Guns guns because of "the children" and a fear that an incredibly unlikely active shooter scenario will hurt them.

To the Right: Don't ban boobies in media because of the "the children", try making kids not be ashamed of their bodies and not tell them to avoid sex and dating and dancing and deny they are sexual beings.

Yes. Not wanting our children to be gunned down in school is the same as being against them seeing boobies.

BSABSVR

You are more likely to be gunned down by multiple assailants who are democrats in your home then your children are to be gunned down in a school by a republican.

There are things you can do to be safe on the road.Wear your seat belt. Avoid drinking and driving. Stop at all stop signs. Follow the speed limit.There are things the government can do as well.Enforce traffic laws more stringently, mark the roads more clearly, raise public awareness about safe driving.

There are things the government does in the name of road safety that are clearly about something else.Like erecting speeding and stoplight cameras that automatically fine you.

There are things you can do that might make you think you are safer, but don't help enough to justify the trouble.Like covering your car in reflectors...

The AWB was the political equivalent of prayer. Politicians showed how much they cared by crafting a law that didn't actually help anyone.Mass shootings still happened. Crime still happened. No one could identify the one person saved by a mag limit, so there was effectively no benefit.All it did was cost the Democrats votes when they could least afford to lose them.

/What the AWB is doing in Colorado is, once again, putting the democrats reelection plans in peril./Endangering their gains on Marijuana and gay marriage, as well as two thousand jobs in the weapons industry./That car gets crappy gas mileage and scares off the chicks.

bronyaur1:How did things work out for the racist rednecks the last time they fought the US govt in a civil war?

You don't have to be fighting the federal government to want these kinds of weapons. Residents of drug-cartel-embattled Guerrero state in Mexico took up arms and drove out the cartelistas and the corrupt cops who enabled them. They've since established a quasi-official police force and a makeshift prison and are keeping the drug gangs out. When civil order breaks down and the institutions of government itself become irredeemably corrupt, arms are the only means citizens have of reestablishing control.

You try to ban assault rifles and you will begin the second civil war.

Perception is reality, and many crazy rightists believe that Obama is coming for their guns. Banning assault rifles will send these overly paranoid folks over the edge. They didnt buy those guns when he was elected and reelected for show. They plan on using them.

If the best argument is that, "gun-control legislation will incite the fascist right to violent revolution", then civil government in this country is already done for and we might as well do it instead of waiting for those trash to stage their own Kristallnacht.

You know, I used to wonder why the Honorable Dianne Feinstein seemed to be on a personal mission to remove Assault Rifles from the hands of US citizens, and restrict their use only to responsible law enforcement personnel.

Yesterday I found out. For Senator Feinstein, it's PERSONAL.

Back in 1978, when Feinstein was serving on the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, she witnessed a double homicide when a deranged man entered city hall and gunned down SF Mayor George Mocsone and Supervisor Harvey Milk.

Obviously this tragedy had a traumatic and life-changing effect on Dianne - who actually heard the shots and was among the first to see the carnage.

The weapon he used in the murder was a pistol - the service revolver he obtained from his former work as a police officer.

Hopefully now you to will understand why Feinstein wants to ban Assault Rifles - with their deadly flash-suppressors, pistol-grips, thumb-holes, and bayonet lugs, and leave such weapons only in the hands of police.